MI vs. AI

[MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com]

In a message dated 9/25/2006 4:22:37 AM Central Standard Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


> From: "M@" <matthew.dunlap@gmail.com>
> Subject: [lojban] my opinion on why lojban isn't specifically well suited for h
> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:24:17 -0600
>
> First, a disclaimer; while I have put a significant amount of time into
> thinking about this kind of thing I'm certainly not an expert.  I'm still
> going for my BS.
>
>
> Computers are both digital and binary (note: I distinguish digital from
> binary, some people disagree, but that's another argument altogether (and
> yes I'm aware that binary implies digital, that phrase is foreshadowing)),
> which makes them an interesting self metaphor.  The difference between MI
> and AI is as fundamental as the difference between 1 and 0.  Thus, the two
> potential uses of a syntactically unambiguous language (SUL for brevity) in
> a computer have no grey area between them.
>
> ...
>
> Of course, the other dream is to actually teach a MI how to speak and
> understand lojban.  Assuming such an auto-associative system could be made
> hardware wise, there would be absolutely nothing preventing it from being a
> perfectly natural feeling interface in spoken or typed lojban.  You could
> ask it absurd questions and it could give you obviously considered answers.
> The problem I find with this is that once you've built MI there's no reason
> whatsoever you couldn't teach it English as well.
>
> The problem with human languages is that they are based on understanding.
> The problem with computer languages is that they're based on digital
> principles (which don't really apply in an analog world).
>
>
>
> That's what I think anyway, if you disagree I'd love to hear why.


What's MI?  Machine Intelligence?
If so, how's that different from AI?

stevo